Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 14:49:02 -0500 (CDT) From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org> To: tlambert@primenet.com Cc: fenner@parc.xerox.com, tlambert@primenet.com, fenner@parc.xerox.com, peter@netplex.com.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bogus errno twiddling by lstat... Message-ID: <199806201949.OAA17700@detlev.UUCP> In-Reply-To: <199806192152.OAA23766@usr08.primenet.com> (message from Terry Lambert on Fri, 19 Jun 1998 21:52:47 %2B0000 (GMT)) References: <199806192152.OAA23766@usr08.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> However, normal library >> functions are explicitly allowed to modify errno even if no error >> occurs. > Allowed to. > Should they, however? > I think "no". Whether it's a good idea or not, portable programs should be written to check errno only on errors. Our platform is not the only one that does this; some will set errno=ENOTTY when you don't write to a tty, etc, etc. If, however, you don't like our malloc's current implementation, and think that errno should be saved and restored across a successful call, and that the lost cycles would be worthwhile, then diffs would be perfectly welcome, I'm sure. I won't write them, because I think it's unnecessary, and have other things to do. Happy hacking, joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org - http://www.wp.com/piquan Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806201949.OAA17700>